political convention

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

The names for many common drugs advertised on television
have no medical significance.They sound
like real words and are meant to evoke pleasant emotions or scientific
authority. But in reality they are coined by advertising agencies or paid word
doctors and tested with focus groups to make sure they produce the intended
effect.Might these words become
part of our everyday vocabulary?Here
is the story of a harried business executive translated into Lingquest, the
brand name for generic pharmaspeak:

“I was up to
my neck in spiriva. I longed for the days when I felt the ambien
that made working in business eliquis, even allegra at times. But things weren't the same anymore in this prilosec. Symbicort had filed a zantac in court that
probably meant prevacid, if not final crestor. It was going to be a
complete farxiga for my business and probably my cialas. Luckily,
Brisdelle called. What a lyrica that woman is. She suggested we meet at a
salonpas and have a nexium or two to celebrex the levitra we still
had together and our boniva lunestra. But I just couldn't get
the face of Vitorin, the Symbicort CEO, out of my mind. Feeling utterly plavix, I
downed a shot of cymbalta. Suddenly everything became clariton. I would
tell my lipitor to file suit to get a requip and put a stop to this raid on my
flomax. Then I could look forward once again to the avandia I had always dreamed
of.”

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Usually called a libertarian by the media, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said recently he thought a better description would be “libertarian-ish” because he is also a Republican.The libertarian hate-government ideology is hopelessly out of place in a complex and diverse modern society. But its more thoughtful believers are sometimes right on questions of fundamental freedoms such as speech, religion and personal liberty.So how does Rand Paul rate on the “ish” part of his self-description? Not very well it turns out. Below, for example, is Senator Paul’s position on abortion from his official website, www.paul.senate.gov. [Sanctity of Life]. On this issue, Senator Paul has no problem with big government intruding into the lives of individual citizens. Analysis added by LaughingStockNation.

●I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Consequences:In addition to abortion, birth control methods that impede the fertilization of a human egg, such as “the pill,” could be outlawed if Senator Paul’s ideas became law.A fertilized egg possesses “personhood,” according to the senator’s view, and conception happens at the behest of God.Using government to impose this religious belief on those who disagree violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.

●I strongly oppose any federal funding of abortion and will attempt to stop the flow of tax dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion.

Consequences: A non-profit group that merely advocates on behalf of a woman’s right to have an abortion could lose its tax exempt status and contributions to the organization would no longer be tax deductible. In addition, groups like Planned Parenthood that provide vital pre-natal care to thousands of women will be excluded from any kind of government grants or funding. Punishing an organization simply because of advocacy violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

●I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Consequences:Conservative state legislatures across the country will be able to use their governmental powers to force a woman to carry her pregnancy to term no matter the circumstances of conception or the woman’s wishes.

●

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

Consequences:Such a law violates the Constitutional principle of separation of powers and would stand little chance of being upheld by the courts. If, however, Senator Paul’s proposal was passed by Congress, signed by the President and sustained in court, it would prevent citizens from exercising one of their most fundamental rights—going to court to challenge injustice and the improper exercise of government power.